Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that
don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.

Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.

A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).

I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...

This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.

Thanks for pointing this out - I think it’s more purposiveness or intentionality, rather than a specific, definable purpose. This relates to Kant. We have purpose, we are purposeful in our actions, but I agree that
don’t appear to have ‘a purpose’ as such. Likewise, there is meaning to life - a meaningfulness to living - but not a definable meaning as such. Nevertheless, I should point out that by ‘conscious subject’, I’m referring to those animals whose consciousness we may reliably assume, but who lack the capacity (that we can ascertain) for self-reflection and language. We define a conscious subject by attributing purposiveness to their perceived limitations as a living being - much of evolutionary theory is an example of this, as are the judgements we make of assumed intentionality against us. A conscious subject with no concept of self is not only incapable of distinguishing between meaning and value, but distinguishes between one value-meaning (purpose) and another only by attributing them as properties of objects in the environment in relation to that subject’s own intentionality (of which it is unaware). The attribution of value-meaning without distinction to a conscious subject defines the existence of that conscious subject by an assumed (if uncertain) purpose.

-Possibility

Almost all of this makes sense to me, along with your clarification of the word purpose. It's a pleasant surprise that you mention that other animals "lack the capacity (as far as we ascertain)" because it's easy for an average person to assume that simply because they don't have our IQ or social societal etc. complexity that they're nothing like us. I like that you acknowledge, as one example, our own limitation, which links in with a later point you make that is also a pleasant surprise just for someone to say.

A self-conscious existence has the capacity to recognise that values vary in relation to meaning. But we tend to assume that we ‘create meaning’ from our perception of value/potential - and most of our language structure is built on this assumption, including the way we define abstract concepts. The way I see it, we hypothesise and test meaning from a limited perception of value/potential in relation to a perception of our own value-meaning (self). It is only when we account for our limitations and correct for prediction errors that we will recognise our position in the dimensional relation between value and meaning (eg. a limited observation of the solar system perpetuated the geocentric model, despite unavoidable prediction errors).

I apologise if this seems confusing. The challenge I often encounter in explanations at this level is with language and logic, which assumes a subject-object relation, value/conceptual structure as the container of existence, and meaning to be subsumed under concepts. A six-dimensional metaphysics considers meaningfulness (what matters) to be the container of existence, inclusive of all possible relations, conceivable or otherwise. This has the unsettling effect of de-centring and deconstructing perception of the ‘self’ as subject, and allowing for conception of a reality in which a self-conscious existence is valid and purposive, yet ultimately unnecessary in itself - it matters in how it relates within all possible existence. Like other principles of relativity, it isn’t where we operate in day-to-day interactions, but I find it improves understanding in dealing with the bigger questions...

-Possibility

This as well I follow, I think it's the language associated with six-dimensional metaphysics that sounds more difficult albeit much more clear to me now in this context. I definitely agree that broader considerations and conversations about existence isn't particularly necessary in day-to-day interactions, but that doesn't mean any of this is actually relevant. Too many people are way too surface level, and our culture/society is largely based on surface level existence and conversation. I see many bigger questions and what relates to them at the very least interesting. Often important. Culture/society exists in a way that people can rarely at most have to think much for themselves, unless a crisis of meaning or mental health pushes them beyond that comfort zone.

I appreciate especially your respectful approach in disagreement and in questioning what I say. As I re-read your paragraph about six-dimensional metaphysics, I realize that whether or not the detail you explain it in is necessary depends on what the overall point is. I think I can explain what I mean by that. If the point is that we, humans particularly but maybe other animals as well are living beings that exist beyond just our physical bodies metaphysically, including the mind, our ideas, within some form of space as persists over time, I can understand that without the reference to 4D etc and exceptional vocabulary. However, because you speak about dimensions and existence across dimensions, I definitely agree that it's difficult to communicate how we exist without referencing these different dimensions of existence.

My criticism isn't really that your understanding fails, I know that despite my own certainty of certain aspects of life it's smart for me to acknowledge that I ultimately don't know. My reaction is to the word purpose, the purpose of a living being's varied lifespan, which I admittedly assume that the word purpose has special weight. I don't know that we have a purpose. We do create meaning; socially, culturally and subjectively, but whether or not there's a broader meaning to life, I don't know. You say that awareness of value/conceptual structure that have meaning indicate self-consciousness. I think I understand awareness and consciousness, though both are abstract, but self as well as meaning in the way people typically consider it are questionable to me.

Your opinion of what speculation is doesn't mean it's the same as the dictionary definition, which via dictionary.com seems to include both ideas of what we're wording as speculation. Aside from that, I was thinking to myself about how concepts/ideas can be created as objects and people in space, so what you say definitely is a better description of what this exists as. I hadn't considered that.

I understand as well as perceive my life as existence beyond my body and mind, yes it seems metaphysical. What you're about that makes sense, and though it is articulate, might be jumping to multiple conclusions about consciousness. You're using an unnecessary eloquent way of saying something that can be said in more simple language.

Something that might not be limitly speculation, meaning guessing without much thought, is that the mind seems to be a concept. Possibly just the way we talk and think about it, but whatever it is seems elusive unless you use brain and mind interchangeably. In an earlier post you stated that everything that exists exists within space. Concepts/ideas exist, therefore they exist in space. I don't understand why you say everything that exists is within space, especially that this includes concepts/ideas. This is not to put down concepts/ideas, I often love thinking about them. Here's a blatant promo to tie in with what I said: I started a meetup.com page you can find at meetup.com/Initial-Curiosity that is intended to in part discuss philosophy, which at it's most abstract, especially, is concepts/ideas. I struggle with the thought of the mind, including concepts/ideas, having anything like a location in itself.

I realize there's a couple of different ways to respond to was is definitely difficult to struggle with. One way is more practical the other is again philosophical.

I think the only way you can get beyond this rut is to find some way to uplift how you feel. It's a simple and also difficult thing to say, but I doubt that there's any amount of logic alone or pondering what might not have an answer that can make you overcome this. Another way of seeing this: I notice though that you need permanence in order to see value in living or having goals. I can relate, but where I would say something different is considering that Buddhists see life as impermanent. They never say life has no value simply because of that, so their response to the idea of impermanence is finding value despite that.

This Nietzsche quote answers what his intention/perspective was, which I didn't know. It also explains a lot as to why nihilism is usually seen as depressing, frustrating etc. because it's implied by Nietzsche calling it a modern crises that he himself openly saw it as something to be fixed or eradicated.

Yes it's my intention to help as well as say what I've noticed about nihilism. I can in part echo what Pfhorrest and Nils Loc said about justifying/being stuck in thoughts and emotions. Depression might be a natural eventual experience we have, especially circumstantial. However, to be in a loop where all possibility of something to live for is rejected is just defeatist and prolonging what could be temporary depression. Not only that, if meaning must exist supposedly outside of you or beyond you in order for you to want to live, then you rely on something external when there's more power in choosing a purpose for yourself.

It often seems to me, and I myself choose accordingly, that life has the meaning one gives it. A lot of first hand experience indicates this in my life. The times I felt overall like life wasn't worth it, or is just boring, I lived accordingly. Now that I often choose what I focus on, I choose what meaning, or lack there of, my life has. Despite or because of outside influences as well. This doesn't mean what I say is ultimately true, or necessarily true at all. If all nihilism and it's different types claim is that aspects of life, or life itself, is meaningless, you could still be happy. My impression of this broad and simple description of nihilism is it claims something that's at least difficult for most of us to consider, and leaves it at that. It doesn't qualify the claim further, it just leaves you to take it as you will, and this seems like an unwitting problem. Even if Nietzsche didn't intend for this to be melancholy, frustrating or depressing, of  course it easily is for many people. That's the reason it doesn't seem compatible with happiness. Unless he said (I don't know myself) "Life is meaningless and therefore not worth it" people are adding in an interpretation of his point that isn't inherent. Myself included.

Thanks. I know, it's a difficult position to be in, even for a sensible person. That is the part that scares me, it's not just so easy as a "resist the mob, period" conclusion for anyone to see.

I don't think formal justice is impossible in general simply because of mob justice in the court of public opinion. It's a problem for sure, and seems to have become a big problem because of activists (probably most) and large media outlets, whether social media or mainstream "news." Count on them to make a real or even falsely reported incident a big deal because they're inclined to. I assume by formal justice you mean due process.

   However, I recently listened to Glenn Loury's podcast with guest John McWhorter and they brought up a point I never considered. In the George Floyd case for example, there's a lot of pressure for this cop who seems completely out of line to be charged. To your point, it doesn't allow a jury to weigh the evidence as objectively as possible. It's been a huge consensus that he's a cold-blooded murderer in court of public opinion, and if he isn't charged, that will be assumed proof of systemic racism. If we can't set a clear distinction between the court of public opinion and formal justice, it opens up a frightening door to mob justice.

It is relative to context. As someone acknowledged in a previous post, it matters to society what your race and nationality is as examples. For an average person, greatly influenced by culture and society, at least one of these categories is very important to them. On one hand, these categories allow us to more easily judge people and divide ourselves and not get to know an individual. On the other hand, ideally, categories can exist and be discussed without the division amongst all. Some opposites will probably stay divided.

To make it plain up front, the reason I post this comment is to relate it to (self-promote) a free group conversation possibility I started awhile back called Initial Curiosity on meetup.com/Initial-Curiosity . On a couple of my no topic (no pre-selected topic) group dates, an attendee gave an idea to talk about language and it's implications, which became the goal of our conversation.